Mario Trade Idea

[Warren]

I like the idea too, but I don't think the Redskins would be interested in Mario since they drafted Ryan Kerrigan in the first round to play that spot and they're happy with him (7.5 sacks, 4 FF, Int., TD). Mario would be an upgrade but not enough to pay such a big price for him.

You mentioned letting Mario "go home" -- what about the Panthers? They had a productive offense that should get better as Newton gets more experience but a bad defense with little pass rush.

I heard somewhere that the new CBA says that you can't franchise a guy with the intent of trading him, but I skimmed through it and couldn't find that. You can't trade a player's franchise rights but that can be worked around.

[popanot]

The Skins D was halfway decent last year and I don't see them giving up that high of a pick PLUS weakening their secondary. However, if they were interested, I wouldn't mind Landry, their #2 and their 2013 #1. Maybe we swap #2's if that will get it over the top.

I do like Warren's suggestion of the Panthers though. I think that's a good match for what they need and they're in a draft slot where Mario would be good value for them. I think I'd like a little more than just their #1 though. Especially since Mario was taken #1 overall and has proven to be a really good player. Maybe their 2012 #1 and a 2012 #3 - or a 2013 #2.

[popanot]

Teams I see in the 1st round that could use Mario are:

CLE - They have 2 #1's (#4 and #22). The first is pretty high, but they might be willing to deal for Mario in a package deal if both RG3 and Blackmon are off the board. Blackmon, I would think, would be our target up that high, so if he's gone, why trade up? Their 2nd #1 is right in that Kendall Wright area, and I'd be on the horn with them in a heartbeat if Wright is available there (I'd call whether the trade involved Mario or not). However, #22 is a pretty low pick for Mario so they'd have to kick in some extra picks or do a pick swap in the later rounds (or both).

MIA (#9) - This is good value slot for both teams. Floyd might be there, but it might be a little high for picking Wright (personally, I like Wright better than Floyd for the Texans).

BUF (#10) - Their D was atrocious. Again, Floyd might be there, but it might be a little high for Wright.

SEA - (#12) - A young, up-and-coming D that could use a stud DE. An ideal Mario trade up slot for both teams. Mario's a good value for them and I probably wouldn't have a problem pulling the trigger on Wright here.

AZ - (#13) - Same reasoning as above.

Others: NYJ, CIN, SD, NE - Only problem here is they're all AFC teams and are primary playoff competition.

Obviously the lower you get in the round the more the other team will have to kick in. I'd definitely be shopping Mario, though. Love the guy, but his trade value to us is higher than his player value right now.

[cadams]

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.

[Nconroe]

I'm still for keeping Mario if he will sign a cap friendly extension.

Team does have a lot of tough FA decisions to make.

[popanot]

Originally Posted by cadams

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.

I think this is relative to the trading partner and where they pick. For example, I'd give up Marios for a high-to-mid #1 if a guy we want is there, but I'd still try to do a pick swap in the latter rounds. For example, if we're trading with CAR and can't get additional picks, try to get their #1 and swap #2's or #3's. That way we get to pick earlier in the respective round.

With that being said, I would not give up Mario for only a low #1 (say, to GB or NE) without additional picks or a high (#1 or #2) 2013 pick. Mario was a #1 overall pick, young, is proven, and will probably have a pretty cap friendly deal (for the first few years at least) once he renegotiates. Obviously a player/pick trade would work too. He does have player value to us so we can't afford to just give him away.

[HPF Bob]

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

That is a compelling case.

Now what if somebody else had a great but not game changing DE who was approaching 30 and had a history of injury concerns and wanted your next two #1 picks?

[cadams]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

1. a pro bowler in the prime of his career that has been placed on IR both of the last two years with season ending injuries.

2. unproven rookies will cost A LOT less than mario under the new salary cap system.

3. resigning mario will likely mean they have to put the restricted tag on foster (after smith told him last year they would get him a new contract if he had another good year) and could lead to a holdout. (foster is way more valuable than mario)

4. denver got that for cutler because quarterbacks are more valuable than any other position.

i hope i am wrong (because pass rushing ends are very valuable) and they can get a couple of picks for him, anything is possible (see palmer deal this year.), but i think that unless mario is willing to have a VERY reasonable contract he won't be back. they are too close to the cap and signing myers and foster have to be priorities. if the texans can even get a 1st round pick between 15 and 25 i would take it. that would allow them to get a receiver and cb in the first round, and them pick up a speed rusher at OLB with a later pick.

and while snyder has done some odd things, so anything is possible, i don't think there is any way they give up the #6 pick AND landry for mario.

[WMH]

Originally Posted by Warren

I heard somewhere that the new CBA says that you can't franchise a guy with the intent of trading him, but I skimmed through it and couldn't find that. You can't trade a player's franchise rights but that can be worked around.

I asked LZ about this, and he said they would have to "prove" intent. Easier said than done, so trading should not be out of the question, but the team likely will have to show the ability to live with the tag if the trade falls thru.